[WSIS CS-Plenary] Sixth Unoffical personal report of ad-hoc working group of Internet Governance, PrepCom III, WSIS

Fri Sep 19 16:23:32 BST 2003

Dear Chun,

this is such as lively and wonderful report that i have the feeling I  
was in there. So many thanks and enjouy a non-turtored weekend. Take  
some time an go the french mountains.

BTW here is a good short press report from Mondays Press conference on  
AP

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/ 
0,7204,7311040%5E15319%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&ncid=528&e=6&u=/ap/ 
20030918/ap_on_hi_te/internet_regulation
Best

wolfgang

On fredag, sep 19, 2003, at 17:15 Europe/Copenhagen, Chun Eung Hwi  
wrote:

> Five minutes is not enough for arguing something, but it is very  
> possible
> time for effective communication rather than biting so much time for
> duplication and repetition of the same words in the name of country
> delegation. And now we are talking about global information and
> communication society meaning more feasible, more desirable, more
> efficient, more valuable communication rather than the discommunication
> arising from cliche. Will government delegates know this?
>
> Even today, Bertrand Chapelle demonstrated this effective case of
> communication for making better world. Only for five minutes allowed  
> for
> civil society group, he commented once again on key points of the  
> issue.
> Maybe, those who read my fifth unofficial report may have the  
> compromise
> text as one outcome of ad-hoc working group of Internet Governance. He
> made three comments on that text.
>
> The first one was to point out the word - "multilateral" still  
> surviving
> even after his repeated comments should be replaced with multi
> stakeholder, and the participation of all stakeholders in the
> international management of Internet should be kept at the first bullet
> sentence.
>
> Regarding the 3rd bullet sentence, he expressed one surprise that the
> prior "ccTLD" (country code top level domain name) related phrase had
> completely disappered and the present text is saying more broader and
> expanded scope of "Internet-related public policy issues" language
> replaced it. Anyhow, he reiterated the importance of the decision or
> participation of local internet community (LIC), (but not simply by
> governments)
>
> Again, today, he pointed out bullet sentence 1 and bullet sentence 4  
> are
> intercontradictory because bullet sentence 1 is saying the all
> stakeholders' participation, but bullet sentence 3 and some phrases of  
> 4
> is saying only governments.
>
> By leaving out of the meeting place, Bertrand requested to be called on
> when ten minutes briefing is to be held before the closing time. And he
> put down his mobile phone number to the secretariat. I asked the
> secretariat person when the predefined closing time is. Then, his  
> answer
> was that it is open-ending meeting, so we cannot guess it, but it  
> might be
> around five o'clock. (The beginning time of this session was two  
> o'clock.
>
> Today, even though Friday, in the morning all comments on draft Action
> Plan document has finished. So, there is no afternoon session. And
> tomorrow and Sunday, we don't have any session. So, many frinds of mine
> have already left for looking around the city. But unfortunately, due  
> to
> my small self-decision for recording what is happening in Internet
> Governance working group of PrepCom III, WSIS - seemingly very foolish
> decision, now I am keeping the gate of the meeting room. Bertrand left
> because he had two more promised meeting. He was not sure whether he  
> could
> come back or not. I could be only one watchdog here. At the front of my
> desk, one African guy is sleeping in his seat. Is WSIS a torture to  
> him?
> In the midst of his sleeping, he might communicate with their family
> members free from this torturing world.
>
> After looking around the gate a couple of minutes, I decided to enter  
> into
> the meeting place. If I would not intervene with the meeting, I would  
> not
> be recognized. As I entered into the meeting place, the most heating
> debate has already gone away. With regard to hot debate point, I could
> hear only one speech of Brazil delegate. He said that together with all
> other countries like Egypt, Iran, Bangladesh, China …, we respect the
> private sector. Private sector has their own affairs. They can do that  
> by
> self-regulation. On the other hand, each government have their own  
> public
> policies, and for the coordination with other governments, governments
> should do their own affairs. We have no intention to disturb private
> sector's affairs. We, as governments, want to do our own affairs. This  
> is
> very legitimate
>
> And the other discussion was concerned with multilingual domain name.
> Indian delegate proposed the specific language of "internationalized
> domain name" rather than "multilingual domain name registration" for  
> the
> bullet sentence 5. And for the time being, there was some confusing  
> talks
> on this - somebody wanted to use the term of "regionalism" and some
> confusion of RIR (regional internet registry) and domain name,  
> confusion
> of language and technical code scheme. Sharil (Chair of GAC/ICANN)'s
> clarification … Diop's technical explanation (Diop was the national
> delegate of Senegal, but he was financially supported by ICANN for this
> participation, he is now one of board members of ICANN. I have already
> described him in my 3rd Unofficial personal report. After very  
> confusing
> long discussion, all participants agreed to the addition proposal of
> "taking into account multilingualism" at the end of the first bullet
> sentence. For the time being, there was chaos talks on multilingualism  
> and
> internationalized domain name.
>
> After the closing of the meeting, Bertrand came back and asked some
> questions to the Chair. He raised up the severe danger of the bullet
> sentence 3 - because it could be abused as contents regulation by  
> state.
> He also requested the change of situation of observers' attendance at
> least next week. Chair promised to try to do so, but still the answer  
> was
> very unclear.
>
> I don't know what happens in the discussion among governmental
> delegations. Fortunately, one lady is present in the meeting as a  
> member
> of national delegate. She disclosed what is happening in the other  
> mailing
> list for Internet Governance. It shows up one severe schism - one bloc  
> of
> U.S. EU, Japan, Norway, Canada, Malaysia, Senegal, (prefer
> multistakeholder and "international") and the other bloc of Mali,
> Mauritious, China, Uganda, Brazil, Saudi Arabia (prefer
> "intergovernmental") In closing remark, Chair reminded the spirit of  
> WSIS,
> bridging the gap of digital divide and appealing the narrowing down the
> gap between extremes, and to seek compromise. And Closed. Bye bye up to
> next week Monday.!!!!!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Chun Eung Hwi
> General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
> Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
> Seoul, 158-600, Korea  	    | eMail:   chun at peacenet.or.kr
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> From: "jeanette hofmann" <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>To:
> governance at lists.cpsr.orgReply-to: jeanette at wz-berlin.deCc:
> wsis at ilpostino.jpberlin.deSubject: [Governance] report of governance
> working groupDate: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:00:41 +0200
> Hi, everyone,
>
> The crucial bone of contention of today was
> item/bullet point 4, which was already very
> controversial yesterday. Below you find the
> different versions discussed yesterday:
>
>
> 4.Internet issues of an international nature
> related to public policies should be coordinated
>     a)[between governments and other
>     interested parties.]
> b)  [through/by appropriate
>     intergovernmental organizations under
>     the UN framework.]
>     c)[as appropriate on an intergovernmental
>     basis.]
>     d)[through/by appropriate international
>     organizations.]
>     e)[through appropriate and mutually agreed
>     international organizations.]
>
>
>   List of countries that spoke up on this issue today:
>
> EU: a or d
> Japan: d
> Canada: d
> Norway: a or d,
> Mali: b
> Mauricius: b
> China: b
> Uganda: b
> Brazil: b
> Australia: a
> Saudi Arabia: b
> US: a (only)
> Mexico: a
> Zimbabwe: b
> Senegal: a or d
>
> As you can see, no consensus was possible. As a result, item 4 is
> put into additional square brackets. All in all, there are now 2 levels
> of square brackets. One applies to the whole paragraph 44, the
> other to item 4. For option c and e, a third level of brackets was
> discussed but finally dismissed. Now, the whole para will go back
> to plenary next week. I don't see that another plenary discussion
> will be of any help.
>
> I am most likely not allowed to post this information, please keep it
> confidential and by no means forward it with my name or email
> address attached. Also, no guarantee that I got all the votes right,
> we have a language problem here and just Richard Hill (surprise,
> surprise, as an interpreter.
>
> Best, je
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>